"Why the Left Doesn’t Appreciate Obama "

Beyond Chron:

As the Iowa caucuses approached, progressive attacks on Barack Obama greatly increased. Bloggers on the popular Daily Kos were almost beside themselves condemning Obama’s alleged wrongs, with even Kos founder Markos Moulitisas expressing disgust with Obama’s alleged “right wing” appeals for votes.

Most progressive bloggers backed John Edwards, preferring his confrontational approach to Obama’s pledge for red and blue state “unity.” But what Obama’s strong victory again showed is that most voters do not like confrontational candidates, and Edwards even finished third among presumably combative union households. Instead of celebrating a candidate whose progressive stands were winning over, rather than alienating, independent voters, bloggers were angry. Sadly, many left activists appear to view any candidate capable of attracting votes beyond the true believers as inevitably compromised. Fortunately, this premise was rejected by the new generation of voters whose backing of Obama spelled the difference.

To paraphrase John Kerry, I was right about Barack Obama before I was wrong about him. On November 20, 2006, I wrote a piece urging Obama to enter the presidential race, arguing “his candidacy would galvanize young people and many others toward getting involved in the political process.” I subsequently wrote an article on February 13, 2007 whose title --- “Barack Obama Offers Hope for America’s Progressive Future” --- expressed my view that Obama was the progressives’ best choice.

But in a May 15, 2007 piece, “Reassessing Obama,” I expressed disappointment in Obama’s apparent drift toward “Clinton-style” politics. Obama seemed to have moved away from his earlier message of inspiration and hope, and was becoming indistinguishable from his opponents. His stagnant poll numbers reflected this shift.

In November, Obama recaptured his original galvanizing presence, and became the candidate I thought he would become. But many progressives have been less than excited about Obama’s rise, believing that his message of “One America” was politically naïve.

These progressives preferred the “Two Americas” theme of John Edwards. Bloggers relentlessly attacked Obama in the week prior to the Iowa caucuses, arguing that creating real change requires Edwards’ confrontational approach, rather than Obama’s call for unity.

Ironically, while the bloggers were exercised over Obama, they seemed less critical of Hillary Clinton. But Edwards made it clear in his election night speech that he saw himself and Obama as agents of change, while Hillary stood for big moneyed interests and the status quo.

In the view of bloggers on Daily Kos and similar sites, Obama’s attempt to broaden his political base was akin to “selling out” progressive constituencies. These bloggers view partisanship and combativeness as essential for overcoming powerful constituencies, and look skeptically at Obama’s goal to try to win Republican support for universal health care, strong climate controls, or the many other progressive measures “Red State” congresspersons have long fought.

But as Obama himself has begun pointing out with regularity, the broader his base entering the White House, the broader his mandate for change. While 40% of Bush voters in 2004 may be irrevocably right wing, winning over the other ten percent could prove essential to enacting a progressive agenda in 2009.

Further, it is the responsibility of Obama’s core progressive base, not the independents that voted for him for president, to hold him politically accountable after the election. Bill Clinton was able to break his “Putting People First” campaign promises in 1992 because core Democratic constituencies refused to hold him politically accountable in 1993 and 1994; activists have learned from this mistake, and will not hesitate to mobilize against Obama should he weaken his resolve on progressive issues as the bloggers fear.

These bloggers also pay insufficient attention to the type of campaign messages necessary to win broad support. One gets the impression that these hard-core politicos think that most voters act like they do, carefully parsing through the candidate’s stands on dozens of issues and backing the one with whom they most frequently agree.

But progressive activists who work with disenfranchised or overlooked constituencies on a day-to-day basis know that is not what happens. And, since at least 1976, the winner in U.S. presidential elections has prevailed through big picture themes like “unity,” rather than being the candidate voters most agreed with on a laundry list of issues.

Progressives have long been frustrated by the ability of candidates like Ronald Reagan to win working-class voters. But nobody suggested that Reagan, or Bush for that matter, would be inhibited in pushing their pro-wealthy, pro-corporate agenda by securing working-class votes.

Yet bloggers are suspicious at Obama’s appeal to independent voters. Some take a giant leap in concluding that Obama’s attempt to broaden the Democratic base is a sign that he will allow such backers to water down or “co-opt” his policies as President.

When filmmaker Michael Moore was appointed editor of Mother Jones magazine in the early Reagan years, he challenged progressives to more effectively communicate with the “average” American. Now we have a self-identified progressive candidate who has found almost unprecedented success in reaching independent voters, and the left blogosphere is upset about this.

While the progressive attacks on Obama focus on his non-confrontational rhetoric, his race is often ignored. I’ve heard a number of progressive backers of Edwards discount Obama’s race, arguing that Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice show that race does not dictate one’s politics.

But the American people elected neither Thomas nor Rice, nor Colin Powell.

And given that the United States was founded on slavery and prospered for years through vicious race discrimination against blacks, Obama’s election as President would be not only a profoundly progressive victory, but also a landmark achievement for the nation.

Obama is careful not to highlight his race, but it is safe to say that few among us ever believed that the United States would elect an African-American president. And the only reason this is now possible is because of a new generation that is less racist than their forebears, just as polls show them to be less homophobic and more politically liberal.

If attendance at the Yearly Kos convention is indicative, the progressive blogoshere is overwhelmingly white. Diary entries only rarely address such racial issues as affirmative action or school re-segregation, and even the immigration issue tends only to be discussed as part of political campaigns.

So the historic opportunity to elect an African-American President --- and this is truly unprecendented, as neither Shirley Chisolm in 1972 nor Jesse Jackson in 1988 were ever considered likely Democratic nominees --- has been subtly erased from many progressive bloggers political calculus. And Obama’s remarkable ability to attract white voters --- 96% of Iowa voters were white --- is downplayed, and for some confirms that he lacks the racial “authenticity” of Jackson or Al Sharpton.

John Edwards tried his best, but as Tom Hayden pointed out last week, it’s unclear which if any primary state he can win. So his withdrawal of the race should come sooner rather than later, and his backers in the blogosphere will shift to Obama.

There is no question that Edwards moved the entire Democratic campaign to the left, and he would be a great choice for Obama’s running mate (or future Secretary of Labor.) But young voters particularly saw Obama’s vision as broader and more inclusive, and the son of a Kansas mother and Kenyan father now awaits only a New Hampshire victory to become the nominee.

Barack Obama

"Obama gets youth engaged -- and he gets them to vote"

AP via Seattle P-I:

Voters under 30 key to Iowa win--CHICAGO -- He's got social networking pages online. He visits college campuses, where enthusiastic student groups lobby hard to get their peers involved in politics.

Those are, by now, tried-and-true tactics on the presidential campaign trail. But if the results in Iowa are any indication, there is more to Barack Obama's popularity among young voters than his ability to simply reach out to them.

"Anyone can show up on MTV and say they appeal to young people. Anyone can have a Facebook page. But none of that is going to get you young people's support. They're smarter than that," says Ganesh Sitaraman, a 25-year- old law student at Harvard University, who co-edited the book "Invisible Citizens: Youth Politics After September 11."

What Obama seems to have is an "it" factor -- an unusual ability to not only engage young voters, but to get them to actually show up at the polls.

He did it when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2004. He did so again in Iowa on Thursday, when people under age 30 represented more than a fifth of the overall vote in that state's presidential caucuses.

Of those, nearly two-thirds said they were looking for change. And of that group, three-quarters supported Obama, according to a poll conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks.

Young voters have shown signs in recent years of wanting to upend the status quo -- under 30s were the only age group to cast the majority of their votes for Democrat John Kerry in 2004 -- but it has been awhile since a candidate has generated this kind of enthusiasm, says Molly Andolina, a political science professor at Chicago's DePaul University who tracks young voters.

Andolina believes Obama has struck a chord with young people.

"He's been able to capitalize on their yearning to believe in somebody."

At age 46, Obama is too young to be part of the Vietnam era and the old-time Washington establishment that has left so many young people disillusioned.

When endorsing Obama and Republican John McCain, college newspapers in Iowa praised both for sidestepping partisan politics.

Obama's also been praised for addressing issues important to students -- ending the war in Iraq, global warming, accessibility to medical care and making college more affordable -- although all the major Democratic candidates have offered proposals on these issues.

"Young voters feel like these are issues that will land in their laps. They are our problems to solve, not our parents," says Sujatha Jahagirdar, program director for Student PIRGs New Voters Project, which has been mobilizing young people in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond.

She noted that Republican Mike Huckabee also has shown a willingness to respond directly to students' questions on such issues as global warming.

Howie P.S.: Two previously undecided voters in NH responded favorably to Obama yesterday, as well (video, 01:41).

Barack Obama

"What We Learned in Iowa"

From Matt Bai's post in The Caucus (NY Times political blog):

John Edwards is arguing that the party needs to go back to its Rooseveltian roots. Having come to Iowa as a thoughtful advocate for the poor, Edwards leaves the state as a high-decibel crusader for a more partisan kind of presidency, one that would aggressively take on Republicans and their allies in industry.

Hillary Clinton is arguing for a return to the governing model of the 1990s, with its emphasis on pragmatism and achievable change. In her view, what the party needs is another leader who will competently work the levers of government, repelling conservative extremists where necessary but working with Republicans wherever possible.

Then there’s Barack Obama, whose lofty argument centers more on a postpartisan notion of the presidency—the idea that what Democrats need in a president is not a return to industrial-age populism or Clinton-era realism, but a next-generation leader who can recast the debate. Obama holds himself out as the reformer who can persuade others to leave behind the binary and intractable disagreements of the past.

Barack Obama

Obama robocall: "smears"

Ben Smith:

Obama robocall: "smears"

The Obama campaign's new New Hampshire robo-call, of which I've obtained a recording, defends his record on abortion rights.

The speaker is Wendy Frosh, who identifies herself as "chair of the board of Planned Parenthood New England" (which is the sort of thing that makes nonprofit lawyers nervous).

"The false attacks have begun," she says, touting Obama's "100 percent pro-choice record."

"Hillary Clinton’s last-minute smears won’t protect the right to choose but as president, Barack Obama will," she concludes.

"Obama Exclusive: Barack Sits Down for First Interview Since Iowa Win"
ABC News:

Diane Sawyer Talks With the Presidential Hopeful About Debate Performance and More--After pulling off a victory in Iowa, and with only two days before the New Hampshire primary, presidential hopeful Barack Obama, D-Ill., is on fire. He has become the lead topic on the political circuit, and some pundits think Obama has rival Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. on edge.

The country will watch to see if the Illinois senator can pull off another win in the Granite State, and possibly become the man to beat for the Democratic nomination.

Watch "Good Morning America" Monday to catch Obama's interview with Diane Sawyer, his first sit-down discussion since his victory in the Hawkeye State.

In the interview, Sawyer asked Obama what he thought of how Clinton has been conducting her campaign:

Sawyer: "Do you get angry at her?"

Obama: "Not really. I find the manner in which they've been running their campaign sort of depressing, lately. It was interesting in the debate, Sen. Clinton saying 'don't feed the American people false hopes. Get a reality check, you know?' I mean, you can picture JFK saying, 'we can't go to the moon, it's a false hope. Let's get a reality check.' It's not, sort of, I think, what our tradition has been."

For the "GMA" interview, Obama will touch on his campaign hopes for New Hampshire, his debate performance, and he'll discuss what he really thinks of opponent and former first lady Clinton.

Barack Obama

"Why I Believe Bush Must Go"

George McGovern (WaPo op-ed):

Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.

Today I have made a different choice.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.

But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation.

In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion -- by far the highest in our national history.

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?

How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?

It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world -- more than a billion people.

Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus.

Although the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world. This is the same strategy of deception that brought us into war in the Arabian Desert and could lead us into an unjustified invasion of Iran. I can say with some professional knowledge and experience that if Bush invades yet another Muslim oil state, it would mark the end of U.S. influence in the crucial Middle East for decades.

Ironically, while Bush and Cheney made counterterrorism the battle cry of their administration, their policies -- especially the war in Iraq -- have increased the terrorist threat and reduced the security of the United States. Consider the difference between the policies of the first President Bush and those of his son. When the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush gathered the support of the entire world, including the United Nations, the European Union and most of the Arab League, to quickly expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Saudis and Japanese paid most of the cost. Instead of getting bogged down in a costly occupation, the administration established a policy of containing the Baathist regime with international arms inspectors, no-fly zones and economic sanctions. Iraq was left as a stable country with little or no capacity to threaten others.

Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military occupation, Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil strife. It is no secret that former president Bush, his secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, all opposed the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.

In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral responsibility, there is the scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a sentence: "I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans." Any impeachment proceeding must include a careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response to perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.

Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot.

As former representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon impeachment proceedings, wrote two years ago, "it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws -- that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate. . . . A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law -- and repeatedly violates the law -- thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors."

I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses. At age 85, I won't be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of our sorely damaged country, but I'd like to hold on long enough to see the healing begin.

There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed that life to save the United States from genuine danger, such as the ones we faced when I served as a bomber pilot in World War II. We must be a great nation because from time to time, we make gigantic blunders, but so far, we have survived and recovered.

Howie P.S.: I kept looking for something that would tell me why McGovern has, as he says, "belatedly" reached his present conclusion.

Democratic Debate: Four Videos

hillaryclintondotcom, video (00:30):

Words are not action--and as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. What we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that, of taking on the very interests that you have just rightly excoriated because of the overdue influence that they have in our government.

BarackObamadotcom, video (01:27):

After others criticize him for inspiring Americans with real change, Barack Obama lays out how Americans are determined to see true change occur.

johnedwards, video (01:55):

John Edwards is asked to describe one of his greatest Senate accomplishments - the Patients' Bill of Rights. He goes on to talk about the personal nature of his lifelong work, fighting against powerful insurance companies and special interests. "We need a president who believes deeply in this battle." Recorded during the Democratic debate sponsored by ABC News, WMUR, and Facebook on Saturday, January 5, 2008.

belo4555, video (03:34):

News analysis of undecided voters in New Hampshire shows strong support for change and the campaign of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama

Pre NH Debate Reading List

"Clinton on the attack as Obama takes lead"

"The Obama Phenomenon"

"After Iowa, Challenges Lie Ahead for Obama"

Clinton aides hint that now things'll get nasty"

"Edwards Makes His Case to N.H. Voters"

"HRC team retools strategy, predicts N.H. win"

"Speaking of faith, Obama does"

"An Analysis on Clinton After Iowa - CNN.com"

Barack Obama

"Obama, Romney to be Targets in ABC's Saturday Night Debates"

ABC News:

MANCHESTER, N.H. --Ten presidential candidates (six Republicans, four Democrats) will pull up swiveling chairs and take to the very same debate stage Saturday night in Manchester for two of those encounters on the presidential calendar that merit circling in bright red (and blue) magic marker.

ABC's Charles Gibson has a bit of a different format in mind for the evening than we've seen in previous encounters -- more genial than gotcha, like a very chatty (and very well-lit) kitchen table. But the candidates will surely provide the fireworks: In this excruciatingly brief window between Iowa and New Hampshire, subtly just doesn't work.

The dynamics would be different even if the format was the same: We have the time crunch, of course, but we also have new frontrunners: "Barack Obama enters Saturday's Democratic debate as the undisputed front-runner with a bull's-eye on his back -- and a humbled and hobbled Hillary Clinton itching to open fire," writes the New York Daily News troika of Michael McAuliff, Ken Bazinet, and Michael Saul.

The Republicans get their 90 minutes first, starting at 7 pm ET from Saint Anselm College and broadcast live on ABC nation-wide -- good entertainment while you're staying up late waiting for returns from the Wyoming caucuses (and you know who you are).

The Democrats kick off shortly after that -- following the photo-op of all photo-ops: All 10 on stage at once, sharing handshakes and awkward conversation.

The aftermath of the Iowa earthquake wasn't pretty for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. The takeaway from the "100 Club" dinner Friday night in Milford, N.H., is simple enough to give Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., another round in the scorecard: Clinton was booed, while Obama's supporters were so energetic that organizers were worried about the security situation.

"Three thousand people packed the auditorium and it seems like there are many more Obama supporters than Clinton supporters," ABC's Eloise Harper and Sunlen Miller report.

"It was not Clinton's best performance."

And this was not the headline she wanted out of her first post-Iowa day: "Hillary Booed at NH Democratic Party Dinner." "When Obama, the dinner's last speaker, took the stage the crowd surged forward chanting 'O-bam-a' and 'Fired Up, Ready to Go!' " Time's Jay Newton-Small reports.

"So many people pressed toward the stage that an announcer asked people to 'please take their seats for safety concerns.' By comparison Hillary was twice booed."

Clinton didn't even wait for her flight to land in New Hampshire to start changing her campaign's message. "I think everybody needs to be vetted and tested," she told reporters upon landing. And this, which Sen. Barack Obama's campaign should read as a warning: "I'm not doing this as an exercise."

Yet one Democrat with close ties to the Clinton campaign tells The Note that Clinton won't run any negative ads against Obama, out of a fear of a backlash in this hyper-politicized crunch between Iowa and New Hampshire.

So the dirty work falls to surrogates and oppo-researchers, who got off to a rollicking start, per ABC's Kate Snow. "While the senator was vague, her campaign pointed out to ABC News examples of Obama's liberal positions, including his 2004 statement to abolish mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes," Snow writes.

"They also pointed out a statement Obama made in 2003 that he was 'a proponent of a single payer health care program,' which he no longer seems to support today."

Former President Bill Clinton tells Snow that his wife can turn things around, but adds: "I just wish we had 10 days instead of five."

He's right: Redefining a campaign inside of five days is never easy. Redefining a campaign that's the product of years of meticulous planning -- and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of (sometimes) smart strategic advice -- is a monumental task. And it's one that was not completed inside of the first 24 hours after Iowa.

"Mrs. Clinton is recalibrating her message in hopes of producing Comeback Kid: The Sequel," Patrick Healy and John M. Broder write in The New York Times. "She said she wanted to appeal to young people, and surrounded herself with them at the rally [in Nashua], in contrast to her caucus night party where older, familiar faces from the Clinton administration and her political team stood out." (You mean Madeleine Albright isn't the face of change?)

"Yet many of the challenges and questions she faced in Iowa -- like Clinton fatigue and the generational showdown with Mr. Obama -- remained part of her baggage as she flew east," write Healy and Broder. (They even work in a Monica quote from a voter).

And they document just enough infighting to keep things really interesting over at Camp Clinton: "One longtime adviser complained that the campaign's senior strategist, Mark Penn, realized too late that 'change' was a much more powerful message than 'experience.' Another adviser said Mr. Penn and Mr. Clinton were consumed with polling data for so long, they did not fully grasp the personality deficit that Mrs. Clinton had with voters."

The bruised-but-not-beaten narrative would seem to be the favorite storyline -- but Sen. Clinton isn't leading with humility. Rather than acknowledge defeat and say she's learning from the licks she's taken, she's . . . slamming Iowa?

Imagine how badly Clinton would have lost the caucuses if these sentences were uttered 24 hours earlier: "You're not disenfranchised if you work at night," she said of the New Hampshire primary. "You're not disenfranchised if you're not in the state."

Clinton also declared herself "the most innocent" of all the Democrats, a reference to the fact that Obama is untested and less vetted (and that is a fact). But the problem is that the jury hasn't come back yet.

While voters deliberate, this has got to change, and fast: "Her speech, delivered less than 13 hours after the caucus, was remarkable for the number of new elements introduced in it -- including an explicit reference to the possibility of another terrorist attack," The Boston Globe's Michael Kranish reports.

"The 40-minute speech touched on so many themes that it seemed as if Clinton had not yet settled on her fundamental argument on why New Hampshire voters should disregard her resounding Iowa defeat."

"For those who counseled that she could not campaign both as an agent of change and the most experienced candidate in the race, Clinton had a clear answer: Her two-sided message would not be altered much," report The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut, Jonathan Weisman, and Paul Kane. "Clinton did not appear ready to embrace her defeat, instead trying aggressively to move past it."

It's far easier to embrace victory, and the candidate and crowds carried no shortage of enthusiasm in Obamaland: "There's no destiny we cannot fulfill," the Chicago Tribune's Jill Zuckman writes. "That's been the premise of this campaign."

Momentum is a powerful force in politics, and Obama carried it through day one of this five-day spring; whether he does so in day two depends almost entirely on the debate. "The winnowing of the field opens the way for Illinois Sen. Obama . . . to build on his momentum," Jackie Calmes and Amy Chozick report in The Wall Street Journal. "New Hampshire could shape up as friendly turf for Mr. Obama. Independent voters, who have responded to his campaign message of changing Washington, outnumber both Democrats and Republicans in the Granite State."

On the Republican side, former governor Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., won Iowa, but the momentum -- quite predictably -- belongs to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "Mr. McCain is the latest beneficiary of the continuing upheaval in the Republican field that has seen nearly all of the candidates rising at various points," Adam Nagourney and Carl Hulse report in The New York Times.

And here's why it matters that Romney would be the last kid chosen if the Republican field was one (exceedingly dorky) gym class: "Complicating Mr. Romney's life even more, Mr. Huckabee's campaign manager, Ed Rollins, suggested he was entering something of a temporary alliance of interest with Mr. McCain against Mr. Romney," Nagourney and Hulse reports. Said Rollins: "We're going to see if we can't take Romney out. . . . We like John. Nobody likes Romney."

Good luck on stage, governor. And good luck defeating not only McCain but New Hampshire's most influential newspaper among Republicans.

"Sen. John McCain wore the look of a confident man yesterday as his campaign bus rolled through the Merrimack Valley," the New Hampshire Union Leader's Scott Brooks writes.

"The landscape seemed different yesterday for Republicans in New Hampshire, a state that just a month ago was considered a stronghold for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Romney took a distant second in Iowa Thursday, a disappointing finish that could only heighten the pressure on him to win the nation's first primary."

Romney supporters Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., told ABC News on Friday that the Union Leader's backing makes McCain even more formidable than he otherwise would have been. "The Union Leader gives McCain a very serious base, like the Christian right base for Huckabee in Iowa," Gregg said.

His spin: Second place is OK for Romney. The reality: It's not.

"Stung by Huckabee, Romney now faces the real possibility of a defeat here at McCain's hands that would severely damage his candidacy," Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray write in The Washington Post. Romney had three fresh words for McCain that do a fairly good job of summing up his new message: "He is Washington," Romney said.

"Washington is Broken," reads the sparkling new sign at Romney's Saturday morning event in Derry, N.H., ABC's John Berman reports.

"Mitt Romney is hopping on Barack Obama's bandwagon . . . sort of," write ABC's Berman, Ursula Fahy, and Matt Stuart. The blatant, repeated emphasis on 'change' represents a change for Romney, who while always touting himself as an outsider and a 'turnaround' master, has focused on his social, economic, and security credentials in recent days.

Romney: "People want change. . . . Everywhere I have been, I have brought change."

Romney's got new negative ads hitting McCain, but roughing up McCain in New Hampshire is far different than defining Huckabee in Iowa should have been -- and we saw how well that worked out.

McCain's feeling buoyant: "How about 'The Mac is back?' " he said. "How about that?" The Los Angeles Times' James Rainey and Maeve Reston: "McCain's new effervescence stemmed not only from the strong crowds of voters and reporters who followed him here but from the knowledge that his chief New Hampshire rival -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- had been deflated by his disappointing second-place finish in Thursday's Iowa caucuses."

Despite his win, Huckabee benefits from low expectations, since everyone knows going in that evangelicals are harder to find in New Hampshire than Iowa. "That will not be the pool of voters in far more secular and libertarian New Hampshire, where many take the state motto 'Live Free or Die' literally," ABC's Jake Tapper reports.

Said Huckabee: "A big tent revival out on the grounds of the Concord state capitol? We'll get 'em all converted to the evangelical faith and then we'll win." (Offer them some Red Sox tickets -- Monstuh seats -- and some Dunkin' Donuts and maybe you've got a chance, governor.)

Short of that, Matthew Dowd has some advice for the candidates on his ABC blog (and the debate is important): "Huckabee is going to need to prove fairly quickly that he can win votes outside of evangelical voters and that is going to be tough in New Hampshire. He needs to prove his support isn't limited to one group. He needs to convey a sense of seriousness that is beyond the jovial attitude.

New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner's prediction: record turnout, topping 500,000. "Gardner is predicting 260,000 residents will vote in the Democratic primary and 240,000 will vote in the Republican primary," per the Concord Monitor's blog. "He predicts that 150,000 undeclared voters -- who can choose which primary to vote in -- will cast votes. Of those, he thinks 90,000 will choose to vote in the Democratic primary and 60,000 in the Republican."

Get all of the candidates' schedules, and more on Saturday's debates, in The Note's "Sneak Peek."

Also in the news:

There's an actual real contest on tap on Saturday: Wyoming Republicans are caucusing to choose 12 Republican National Convention delegates, with results expected about 5 pm ET. "Don't forget Wyoming," AP's Mead Gruver writes. (But most of the candidates have.) "Whether anyone has an advantage is unknown," Gruver continues. "There has been no public polling, and those familiar with the results of the Republican precinct caucuses held last month said no clear candidate emerged when delegates to the county conventions were selected."

The Weekly Standard's John McCormack handicaps Wyoming as a Romney-Ron Paul duel. "Romney has had the most active campaign in the state -- his sons have personally contacted a number of people across Wyoming," he writes -- and two of the five brothers will be there Saturday evening. "But it's hard to say how the election will turn out. With so few people voting tomorrow, it's conceivable that Ron Paul's zealous supporters could persuade enough people to poach a few national delegates."

Former senator John Edwards, D-N.C., is casting the race as between himself and Obama -- and good luck with that. He "juggled the roles of underdog and victor" on the trail on Friday, Chelsea Conaboy reports in the Concord Monitor. He knows he is in Red Sox Nation: "New Hampshire knows what it's like to be the underdog and to run against a team from New York with all the money in the world," he said. "I embrace it."

Edwards is also answering questions about his wife's health: "Elizabeth's great I have to tell you -- and that's the truth," Edwards said Friday in New Hampshire, after being asked by a voter about rumors that she's not well, ABC's Raelyn Johnson writes. "You tell anybody that you're on the phone with and whoever is circulating those rumors they're false, and Elizabeth is doing great, feels great and she's healthy."

The Boston Globe's Peter Canellos writes up the different economic face of the Republican Party. "For decades, Republicans sought to reach beyond their traditional base of business-oriented, upper-income voters by wooing blue-collar voters through social issues and appeals to patriotism," Canellos writes. "But Thursday in Iowa, working-class Republicans flexed their muscles, sending former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas to a clear victory over businessman Mitt Romney - and leaving some upper-income conservatives to wonder whether they are in control of their party anymore."

The blogosphere is a-buzz with an entry from the department of "RATS" -- brought to you by Romney media guru Alex Castellanos, who brought us the infamous 2000 Bush-Cheney ad. Actually, this one flashes the less sexy word "rati" for a millisecond or so -- a piece of the anti-McCain word "immigration," HuffingtonPost's Sam Stein writes in rounding up the blogs. "Over-imaginative scrutiny of a screenshot," said Romney spokesperson Kevin Madden. "It's the same sort of reasoning that would argue that the 'gal' in the word 'illegal' is a subliminal appeal to female voters."

As Clinton seeks to attract young voters, why can't that young person who's at her side utter actual meaningful words in public? The Washington Post's Lois Romano tries to answer the question of the silent 27-year-old former first daughter: "At this point it's not clear whether it is the parents or the child who is resisting," she writes. Said a longtime aide: "Believe me, we'd love to have her out there. . . . It's Chelsea -- she won't do it and her parents respect that."

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is spending at least a small chunk of his giant bankroll on New Hampshire and South Carolina television, ABC's Z. Byron Wolf reports. "Paul will air a new ad in New Hampshire to cast his opposition to the war in Iraq as support for the troops," Wolf writes. "Based on similar ads he ran in Iowa, the New Hampshire ad points to a study earlier in the campaign cycle that found members of the military gave more campaign contributions to Paul than any other Republican candidate."

Think former senator Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., is excited to be in New Hampshire? "It's about South Carolina and getting to South Carolina, and the South Carolina campaign really starts today," Thompson said Friday, per ABC's Christine Byun. He's here for the debates, Saturday night on ABC and Sunday night on Fox News Channel -- and that's it. "Thompson does not have public events scheduled for this weekend leading to the primary," Byun reports.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, didn't make the cut for ABC's Saturday night debate under the network's standards, and he's filed an FCC complaint against the network. "Kucinich argued that ABC is violating equal-time provisions by keeping him out of the debate, per the AP's write-up.

The networks rules predated Iowa. Candidates had to meet at least one of three criteria: place first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys. Those rules are also keeping former senator Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, and Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., off the stage.

"Here you will have more time to go in depth on the issues," says ABC political director David Chalian.

The kicker:

"What we learned last night is that the status quo is yesterday, and change is tomorrow and tomorrow begins today." -- Former senator John Edwards. (But what if tomorrow is Sunday, and two more tomorrows after that is primary day?)

"What we're going to do to change Washington is to bring someone in -- I'm talking about me." -- Mitt Romney, tossing subtlety aside.

I'll be live-blogging both debates from inside the debate hall at Saint Anselm College in Manchester. Watch them on ABC and be part of the conversation online here.

A reminder: Saturday's debates -- sponsored by ABC News, Facebook and WMUR-TV -- will be held at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. Republicans will debate from 7-8:30 pm ET and Democrats will follow from approximately 8:45-10:15 pm ET. The two 90-minute debates, moderated by ABC's Charlie Gibson with questions from WMUR anchor and political director Scott Spradling, will air in primetime on the ABC Television Network.

Howie P.S: The debate will broadcast on tape delay in Seattle from 7-11pm on KOMO TV4. As noted above, the Democratic debates will air immediately after the Republican one.

Barack Obama

"Hillary lauds Obama's progressive record"

Markos:

Interesting.

Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.

Yglesias:

Hillary Clinton's campaign seems determined to convince Barack Obama's detractors in the blogosphere that he is so a liberal after all [...]

Progressive record? Heaven forbid! I thought he didn't have experience.

One does get the sense that Hillary's operation is just throwing mud against the wall to see what will stick. Obama needs the independent vote in NH, and the Clinton campaign is obviously trying to scare them away from Obama.

If she succeeds, they'll end up voting for McCain helping to give Republicans their strongest general election candidate. Seems kind of self-defeating, doesn't it? But she needs to stem the bleeding. So suddenly, we have a situation in which the best interests of the Democratic Party is at odds with her short-term interests.

Barack Obama

(Washington) "State could turn into big player"

Seattle P-I:

New front-runners might give our caucuses more sway--Whatever else they mean, the deck-shuffling results of the Iowa caucuses greatly increase the chance that Washington state voters might actually play a role in February in determining who gets nominated for president, both Democratic and Republican state party leaders said Friday.

And Thursday's big winners -- Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama -- could find that the support among religious conservatives (in Huckabee's case) and young voters (for Obama) that boosted them in Iowa could fuel their campaigns in Washington as well.

Both GOP state Chairman Luke Esser and his Democratic counterpart, Dwight Pelz, said the victories by Obama and Huckabee make it more likely that multiple candidates in each party will survive Super Tuesday on Feb. 5 -- and that they'll campaign in Seattle and around the state in the days leading up to Washington's caucuses on Feb. 9. Republican candidates, at least, may also come back for a campaign swing before the state primary on Feb. 19, Esser said.

The once-presumed front-runners in Iowa -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on the Republican side and Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York -- fell short in the Thursday caucuses, with Romney trailing Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, and Clinton finishing behind both Obama, a senator from Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Romney's stumble may have created an opening for two Republicans who campaigned little in Iowa -- Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- heading into the New Hampshire primary Tuesday.

"I tend to think it's going to be wide open for quite some time, that we're going to see different candidates winning different states and it's not going to settle out for quite some time," Esser said.

Pelz said much the same thing.

"I don't think it will be settled by Super Tuesday," Pelz said, "and we're the next big thing -- so I expect Democratic candidates to be out here campaigning on February 6th, 7th and 8th."

More than 20 states will conduct primaries or caucuses Feb. 5. Had Romney and Clinton won Iowa, the conventional thinking was that they could roll into Super Tuesday in the lead and lock up their nominations then.

Washington Democrats will look to their Feb. 9 caucuses in selecting 78 of their 97 delegates to the national nominating convention, with the balance going automatically to public officials and party leaders, along with two slots to be filled by Pelz.

The GOP will draw on the caucuses for 18 of its 40 national delegates. Esser and two other party leaders will fill three slots. The rest will be determined by the Feb. 19 primary, which the Democrats will ignore as far as delegation selection goes.

Three smaller states will also select delegates on Feb. 9: Kansas and Nebraska, with caucuses, and Louisiana, with a primary. Two smaller states -- Hawaii, with Democratic caucuses, and Wisconsin, with a primary -- take that step Feb. 19. That should give the Washington state events a relatively high profile.

Neither Esser nor Pelz is endorsing a candidate. A months-old poll showed Giuliani with a plurality of support among Washington state Republicans, Esser said. Although Pelz isn't aware of any party polling, he said most Democratic gatherings he attends in the state seem to divide evenly among Obama, Edwards and Clinton.

In Iowa, evangelical Christians are credited with giving Huckabee, a Baptist minister, much of the support that has boosted him from nonentity a few months ago to front-runner today. That bloc is less significant in Washington state Republican politics, Esser said, but it's not nonexistent.

Huckabee's Iowa win could galvanize the Christian right in Washington, some conservative leaders said.

"I think the fact that he has been somewhat fearless will be encouraging to evangelicals in this state," said the Rev. Alec Rowlands, president of Sound the Alarm, a group of clergy and business people that takes conservative positions on social issues.

"But if he were to become the front-runner nationally, the very thing that endears him to us would put him in the crosshairs of Democrats and many liberals."

Rowlands, who was pastor of a church in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for seven years before coming to Westgate Chapel in Edmonds, said caucuses reward candidates with good organizations and committed supporters. But beyond that, Huckabee won because he took unabashed stands on hot-button issues such as abortion as well as poverty and the environment, Rowlands said.

Huckabee's win demonstrates the motivation of evangelicals to muster for the caucuses, said Larry Stickney, executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington.

"I think that bodes well for Washington," he said. "I hope so, because we've had terrible turnouts in the past couple of years."

Though Huckabee "may not be the perfect conservative," he attracts Christian conservatives because "the pro-life, pro-family and religious-freedom issues are very much the values in voters' minds these days," Stickney said. His institute in Lynnwood is the state affiliate of Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based national ministry that takes conservative, biblical positions on social issues.

Neither Stickney's nor Rowlands' organization has made an endorsement in the presidential race.

For Obama, overwhelming support among younger Iowa voters apparently pushed him to the top -- and that trend may hold for him in Washington as well. At a recent meeting of the University of Washington Young Democrats, Obama easily finished first in an impromptu poll, Young Democrat member Matt Gilchrist said.

"What grabs me is his youth," Gilchrist, a senior, said (at 46, Obama is 14 years younger than Clinton and seven years younger than Edwards). "I think it's good to have fresh ideas and voices. And his way of speaking -- he really energizes people."

Kelly Drake, a Ballard resident and member of the King County Young Democrats, helped coordinate caucuses Thursday in Iowa, where she attended school.

"(Obama) is very aggressive in terms of getting out the young vote," Drake said. "I think that's something a lot of young voters respond to. It's like, 'Hey, we finally matter.' "

Seattle Pacific University student Troy Underbrink identifies with the GOP, but said he's happy with the results on both sides in Iowa.

While Romney is his first choice for president, Huckabee is a close second. And if a Democrat does have to win the November election, Underbrink said, he'd prefer Obama to Edwards or Clinton.

"I would be very happy if he won the nomination over Hillary," Underbrink said.

"At the same time, I don't particularly want him to be president."

Barack Obama

'Independence': New Obama NH Ad

Video, (00:31).

Howie P.S.: For a view from the ground in NH, here's PsiFighter37's diary on Kos.

Barack Obama

"Judge Him by His Laws"

Charles Peters, WaPo op-ed:

People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.

Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there -- and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters' fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance that they assume is boring, a fascination that despite being ridiculed for years continues to dominate political journalism.)

I am a rarity among Washington journalists in that I have served in a state legislature. I know from my time in the West Virginia legislature that the challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the "heart and soul" bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person's character and ability.

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.

Obama had his work cut out for him.

He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."

The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure"). Obama's commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them.

Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a "unique" ability "to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people." In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.

I do not think that a candidate's legislative record is the only measure of presidential potential, simply that Obama's is revealing enough to merit far more attention than it has received. Indeed, the media have been equally delinquent in reporting the legislative achievements of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom spent years in the U.S. Senate. The media should compare their legislative records to Obama's, devoting special attention to their heart-and-soul bills and how effective each was in actually making law.

Charles Peters, the founding editor of the Washington Monthly, is president of Understanding Government, a foundation devoted to better government through better reporting.

Barack Obama

"Obama's victory upends his party's politics"

LA Times:

DES MOINES — Barack Obama's surprisingly convincing win in Iowa on Thursday upended the Democratic presidential race and overturned some of the fundamental assumptions of modern-day American politics.

Voters in an overwhelmingly white state embraced an African American candidate.

Women, given the chance to vote for the first credible female White House hopeful in Hillary Rodham Clinton, voted in larger numbers for a man.

And the Democratic Party's most formidable political machine, drawing on deep-pocket donors and the celebrity of former President Clinton, was beaten by a man who just three years ago held an office no higher than state legislator.

Amid it all, Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, changed the rules of the Iowa caucuses.

Long viewed as an insular process dominated by longtime political activists, Thursday's first-in-the-nation voting event of the 2008 campaign turned out to be a forum for unaffiliated voters and first-time participants to say they were looking for something new and different.

One-fifth of the Democratic caucus participants were independents, according to a media survey taken as voters entered precincts Thursday night -- and of them, 41% backed Obama and just 17% opted for Clinton. Moreover, 57% of caucus-goers said it was their first time taking part, and first-time caucus-goers made up two-thirds of Obama's supporters.

Even among Democrats -- who Clinton strategists have long argued would be her saving grace -- Obama and Clinton essentially tied, winning 32% and 31% respectively.

The entrance survey of 2,136 Democratic caucus participants, called the National Election Poll, was conducted for a consortium of media organizations, including the Los Angeles Times, by Edison/Mitofsky.

The results helped answer a question that has lingered for nearly a year: Would a desire for experience in a time of war outweigh voters' desire for change in national leadership?

According to the media survey of Democratic caucus-goers, just one in five considered experience to be the most important factor, compared to more than half who said an ability to bring "needed change" mattered most. And among those who embraced change, more than half backed Obama while Clinton and John Edwards split most of the rest in that category.

For the New York senator, the results stood as a sharp rebuke by voters to a central argument of her candidacy: that she, more than her rivals, was prepared to assume the responsibilities of the presidency.

Surveys have long found that Clinton, the second-term senator and former first lady, was viewed as the most experienced and best-qualified to lead on matters of national security and war.

But voters instead endorsed Obama's primary argument for "turning the page" in Washington, an argument that essentially painted Clinton as a status quo candidate.

"Change is the driving dynamic of the race, as opposed to who has the most conventional resume or who voters see as the 'strongest leader,' " said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager.

The results are especially damaging for Edwards, the former North Carolina senator. Even though he barely edged out Clinton for second place the Democratic race is very much a two-person contest, pitting Obama against Clinton.



Edwards was the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee thanks in part to his surprisingly strong second-place finish here in that year's caucuses. But after campaigning in the state nearly nonstop since then, Edwards was thought by some to have the strongest organization and the best chance at victory.

Despite gaining steam in recent weeks with sharply populist attacks on "corporate greed" and lobbyists' power, Edwards on Thursday failed to win his core base of union households and lower-income people.

He placed third among union households, winning 24% of that group, compared to 31% for Clinton and 28% for Obama, according to the entrance survey.

Edwards vowed on Thursday to compete in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary and beyond, but strategists for his rivals said they do not view him as a threat, mostly because of his lackluster fundraising and the expenditure limits imposed on his campaign because of his decision to accept public financing.

Clinton, however, has the national support base and resources to forge ahead.

She retains double-digit leads in national polls and in most of the big states that vote in late January and early February.

She has raised more than $100 million and, though her once-daunting lead in New Hampshire has dwindled in recent days, she enjoys advantages there that she did not have in Iowa. It was a stronger-than-expected finish in New Hampshire in 1992 that allowed her husband to declare himself the "Comeback Kid," and strategists say many voters there remain loyal to the Clintons.

One bright spot in Iowa was her strength among older voters, a strength that could help her along the way.

"Of all the candidates, her support is the most solid, and they will be with her come hell or high water," said Ray Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party.

As a result, the Democratic race has gained more sharply defined contours.

Two Democratic candidates, Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Christopher J. Dodd, both of whom made experience a central pillar of their campaigns, have dropped out. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who touted himself as the most seasoned executive, has been diminished.

Now Clinton will be the sole candidate of experience, and Obama, with Edwards in trouble, can grab the mantle of change.

If voters in other states match the mind-set of Iowa, the Clinton nomination long considered inevitable by top Democratic and Republican strategists could be in serious jeopardy.

She may encounter trouble winning additional donors, while Obama's win is likely to spur more online giving to his campaign.

Polls in other early-voting states, some of which have tightened in recent weeks, could grow even closer.

And Clinton strategists will wonder if she should have taken the advice of an aide who, last year, advised that she skip Iowa.

The aide wrote in an internal memo that competing in the caucuses, with more than 20 states including California making up a decisive national primary on Feb. 5, could "bankrupt the campaign and provide little if any political advantage."

On Thursday, former President Clinton argued in an interview in the downtown Des Moines Starbucks that his wife had to go to Iowa to "show that she could compete everywhere."

The danger for Sen. Clinton is that, instead, it shows the opposite.

Barack Obama

"WHY OBAMA'S WIN IS BIGGER THAN YOU THINK"

Ari Melber (The Nation):

Des Moines -- Barack Obama's decisive victory in the Iowa Caucus is probably even larger than most people realize.

In a battery of national polls -- often inaccurate but relentlessly pitched as self-fulfilling media predictions -- Clinton led by an average of 21 points just last week. As the Clinton Campaign used to emphasize, she also led in December polls from every upcoming primary state, from Iowa to Nevada. She spent about $7 million on over 8,000 television ads in Iowa, plus at least another $10 million on outreach in the state, and stood on the shoulders of Democratic giants, from President Clinton to Michael Whouley to a sizable chunk of the liberal policy establishment.

Barack Obama battled an expectations game stacked against all challengers; a metric of experience discounting work beyond Washington; and an unknowable question about the relevance of his skin color, swirling around his candidacy alone. Last night, Iowans did not simply accept Obama's masterful ability to clear those hurdles, they rushed to support him in an unprecedented coalition within record-breaking turnout. Over half of Democratic attendees were first-time caucus goers. Obama tapped the largest share of the new participants, who compromised 41 percent of his support. Youth turnout jumped 5 percent from 2004, thanks to Obama, who drew a whopping 57 percent of voters under 30. (Edwards and Clinton netted 13 and 11 percent, respectively.) Obama won more support from women voters than Clinton, by five percent. And he bested Clinton and Edwards by a solid 7 percent – roughly 25 percent of their totals.

Republicans saw 108,000 people caucus last night, while the Democrats drew a record-breaking 239,000 caucus attendees -- a gain of 115,000 from 2004. In today's New York Times, Adam Nagourney depicts the Democrats' "huge turn-out" as a demonstration of "the extent to which opposition to President Bush has energized Democrats." Not quite. Bush was easily as big an energizer in 2004, when he was actually on the ballot and Democrats were eager to battle an incumbent who had never even won the popular vote.

Something else is at work here: a strong Democratic field with several compelling candidates; a sense that this is a rare and epic intramural battle that can set the party's course; and, apparently, a hunger for an Obama candidacy that is as adamant about transcending Bush Republicanism as it is about vanquishing Clintonian politics.

Barack Obama

Hillary and John Say "Thank You, Iowa" (video)

hillaryclintondotcom, Video (09:20):

January 3, 2008

johnedwards, video (10:05):

John Edwards speaks in Des Moines after the Iowa caucuses. Change won, the status quo lost, and the fight is on to see if we're going to have the kind of change we need to save the middle class.

Kelly Drake: Report from Iowa City Precinct 14

Kelly Drake (email):

By now everyone has seen the results on CNN, MSNBC or any number of news outlets. From the frontlines in Iowa the results are just as fabulous for Obama. A college friend of mine who grew up in Iowa but never caucused went with me to her precinct tonight. I was excited and to keep our mouths from freezing we chatted about the process and how things ran in 2000 and 204 when I caucused in Johnson County, IA. As we walked into the front door of Mark Twain Elementary school someone was directing people.

Ironically, Republicans to the left and Democrats to the right.

The lines to register for the Democratic caucus were down the hallway and around the corner nearly to the other end (god bless same day voter registration!) and that was at 6:15 and the lines were closed at 7. The Democrats were literally packed into the gymnasium. There was a record breaking 424 people in attendance, even with the nearly a foot and a half of snow on the ground and below freezing temperatures. (So no more excuses Washingtonians!) Obama's campaign was set up to gather right as you entered the gym. As I looked at the crowd I was amazed by the sheer number of people in attendance, but also that the Obama crowd took up half of the gym.

7 pm. The caucus officially started and the precinct caucus chair read a letter from the Iowa Democratic Party Chair. Once the end of the line had registered and the last voter credentialed it was time to get down to the business at hand. One tiny problem. The room was far too small. There were so many people in attendance, that some caucus goers were lining the hallway. So it was decided to take the campaigns that were viable for at least one delegate to separate classrooms so that accurate counts could be taken. Obama's supporters took up 2 classrooms and the length of the hallway. Clinton had one classroom, as did Edwards. The threshold was 64 votes to receive a delegate. First count had Biden - 15, Clinton - 81, Dodd - 10, Edwards - 67, Gravel - 0, Kucinich -17, Obama - 192, Richardson - 25, and about 20 undecideds.

8:05 pm - 30 minutes for Second Redistribution started. Lots of people had questions about the basic math. And I was in charge of one of the Obama rooms, so I explained that you calculate the number of delegates by following the formula: (# of votes for candidate x # of delegates for precinct) / total # voters credentialed. Meanwhile, back in the gym people who were passionate for Obama spoke with those who either undecided or were supporting candidates that were not viable.

8:35 pm - Second redistribution counting began. Final count: Clinton - 88 (1 delegate), Edwards - 101 (1 delegate), Obama - 217 (5 delegates). According to the caucus rules a third distribution was required however seeing that there were no undecided voters remaining and all campaign representatives felt that the numbers were not going to drastically change the outcome the third count was considered to be consistent with the second. All parties agreed and Roberts rules of order was followed so there were no challenges to the votes.

So the final results were 53% Obama, 25% Edwards, 22% Clinton.

Kelly from Iowa, signing off and heading for warmer (albeit rainy) weather.

Fired Up! Ready to GO!

Howie P.S: Kelly has promised us some caucus photos when she returns to Seattle.

Barack Obama

"Obama's Victory Speech" (video)

BarackObamadotcom, video (14:08):

Barack Obama speaks after winning the Iowa Caucuses Thursday night.

Barack Obama

"On Being Balls Out for Obama"

Walker Willingham:

It is a challenge for someone like me to throw my unqualified support behind a single contender for the presidency who is actually given a reasonable chance of winning that contest. My own views include a number of unpopular opinions, and American politics is usually unkind toward anyone with the guts to stand up for such ideas.

Barack Obama may on balance be more conservative than I am, but he eloquently gives voice to a central concept in my own political thinking.

“To me, the issue is not are you centrist or are you liberal. The issue to me is--Is what you’re proposing going to work? Can you build a working coalition to make the lives of people better? And if it can work, you should support it whether it’s centrist, conservative, or liberal.”

From the time I heard his keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, in which he eloquently challenged the conventional notion that we are a nation divided, and that there is little point in bridging our gaps or understanding our adversaries, but rather that

we worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states

I realized that here was someone who was finally giving voice to a powerful alternative to the false dichotomy which has divided us.

Even so I realize that inspirational oratory alone does not make a president or a leader. Political reality demands specific actions, proposals, compromises, and the ability to not only say the right thing but to work with a variety of players to make things happen. I am able to live with Obama's hybrid answer to health care which is not as bold as the plans I would prefer put forward by Kucinich or even Edwards, or his shying away from supporting gay marriage as I would. My tentativeness in supporting such a candidate probably lies more in being convinced that he can successfully drive through those programs where we are in agreement, and make progress on many fronts.

Obama's website does a good job of laying out his positions on issues. His commitment from the outset to rely on individual donors rather than institutional or corporate donors, puts him along with Edwards and Kucinich in the position of being less indebted to the moneyed interests which so many Americans, left, right, and center would like to see play less role in our politics. Having read his "Audacity of Hope", I am convinced of both his sincerity and his intellect.

Some liberal or progressive skeptics worry that Edwards is right that there is a battle to be joined against the corporate bigwigs, and Obama's inclusive approach is naive. Pitching the struggle as a battle, however, may be the naive position, which sets up yet another either/or formulation that will ultimately fall to the moneyed interests. I'm more inclined to agree with this assessment that

the sheer force of [Obama's] empathy and skills as a communicator, would broaden the political landscape and convince moderate Republicans and Independents to back progressive policies they ordinarily wouldn't go for.

Obama's promise to give the corporations "a seat at the table" when issues impacting them are discussed, is not the same as allowing them to set the agenda. I'm convinced that Obama can make it clear to those representatives that certain assumptions they once were able to make are no longer possibilities. It only makes sense to invite the participation of those who understand the current structures when seeking new solutions.

Last summer in talking with others who attended with me an Obama stump speech, the decided Obama supporter among them asked me whether I was "balls out" for Obama. Perhaps suffering from an affliction common among those of us in the second halves of our lives, my response was qualified. But now, with my own state caucus only 5 weeks away, this progressive has decided that it is time to declare my unmitigated support for Obama, without reservation.

Howie P.S.: Walker says "you were the inspiration for the title of my article." I am deeply humbled by that comment, even though I have no specific recollection of our conversation.

Barack Obama

Kelly Drake's Report from Iowa

Kelly Drake emails from the frozen midwest:

I'm currently in Iowa City but I've also been to Maquoketa as well as the Quad Cities (Davenport). From my contact with voters, I really think that tomorrow night's outcome will come down to the Second Redistribution and who people decide to choose once candidates become viable or not for delegates. Especially considering the Kucinich move to press his supporters to vote for Obama.

In terms of college students and their voting records....The Clinton & Dodd campaigns helped out the Obama campaign (at least here in Johnson County, where the University of Iowa is located). There are lots of resources to get students back campus to caucus as backlash against Clinton's outcry at the fact that out of state students legally change their voter registration to Iowa. But the fact that most colleges aren't in session until the 22nd is hard to judge. Because students who grew up in Iowa but attend school elsewhere will be home to vote if they choose, however, at the same time the 40% of the Univ. of Iowa's student body that is from the Chicago area may or may not make the trip into Johnson County to caucus.

I wouldn't count on the Kucinich effect. I was a Dean precinct captain at the 2004 caucus and there was supposedly similar deals between Edwards and Kucinich, but those did not pan out at the actual caucuses. It will be great if that does pan out for Obama though!

All this aside, my contact with voters here has been pretty promising. The average voter seems to be tuning out all the negativity emanating from the Hillary campaign against Obama. My sense is that people don't trust her any further than they can throw her. And I've talked to quite a few people who are first choice Richardson, Biden or Dodd but then if their guy isn't viable for a delegate or Hillary's support is overflowing then they plan on voting for Obama.

For tomorrow night (Thursday) I've rounded up a group of people to take to caucus (a good chunk of them first time caucus voters), then afterwards we're going to Buffalo Wild Wings to watch the returns! It should make for a great night!

Kelly Drake
Iowa alumni/Seattle Obamamaniac

Barack Obama